false. These situations would all be blocked by anti trust laws. Not to mention no isp would do this. These horror stories are so stupid. Try actually listening to those against net neutrality.
"Without ________ regulation, _______ prices will be lowered!" - Age Old Argument Don't those companies . .. the ISPs use public built and paid for resources? Why should we not have some say over something that our tax dollars built? Rocket River
There are two sides of the debate. One side says block all throttling (ex ante) . The other side says handle throttling on a case by case basis because there are reasonable reasons to throttle that don't discourage competition. There is no side that supports the horror stories being suggested. Hopefully congress sets out guidelines that say when ISPs can throttle. What makes this issue hard to discuss is assholes like John Oliver who completely misinform their audience. Now we have a bunch of stupid millenials whining about something they don't understand.
You can't be this stupid. Like seriously, there is no way. This is exactly what is going to happen. We are in the midst of a systematic media takeover, which is downright terrifying. - Sinclair Broadcasting getting FCC approval to take over 72% of all local news stations. - TWC and ATT merging - And now ISP's have the ability to block content under the guise of the net neutrality issue. This is a movement to make every news format just like Fox News, state run media.
Here it is net neutrality supporters. This is your advocate. Try not to cringe. This is not really fair to net neutrality supporters because I know pointing out your craziest critic is a bullshit way to argue.
Here it is net neutrality opponents. This is your advocate. Try not to cringe. This is not really fair to net neutrality opponents because I know pointing out your craziest critic is a bullshit way to argue.
Please explain how repealing net neutrality benefits the consumers then. I've tried to read both sides and I have not seen anything that benefits the consumers if this is repealed.
prioritizing streaming and video games over email and web surfing. netflix and video games are sensitive to lag. your email not so much. Net Neutrality makes this illegal. As far why its so harmful though mark, Title 2 grants full power of the internet to the FCC. That includes pricing, speeds, zero rating, you name it. Its hard for an ISP to operate when at any time an un-elected official can force them to do something for any reason. The old rules meant the FTC had to prove in court of law that a business's practices were hurting competition in a marketplace and therefore hurting customer demand.
He's going to argue that it's unfair for people to pay for an Internet plan capable of streaming music if all they want to do is browse Facebook, despite that being at odds with how people actually use the Internet.
What do you mean by "web surfing," as if that's somehow distinct from people streaming videos on YouTube, a news site or Facebook? Would you prefer to see an AMP-like rendering of all web pages if it meant cutting out video from data consumption?
Personally, I'd stream Spotify WHILE browsing facebook...and then at the same time play Overwatch or something... You mean people only visit one site at a time or something? How else are people using the internet?
I'd ask the guy who just advocated for "email and web surfing" prioritization, presumably because he just got a free disc in the mail from AOL and wants to try give it test drive before buying the whole car.
Web surfing and emails take almost zero bandwith and would have zero effect of video games or netflix. Try again shill. FCC is run by 5 commissioners, appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate, same with Judges. There also can't be more than three of the same political party. Try again shill. And now the ISPs governance is they have to promise in writing that they won't throttle competitors, which is downright laughable. The trick here btw, is that the FTC isn't equipped handle these types of cases and will be easily beaten in courts. You know what the biggest giveaway that this is a total sham? This is all easily fixable by just passing a law that ISPs can't throttle content. Then it can be under any title you want. But it hasn't happened, because this has nothing to do with anything other than being a total handjob for ISPs to squeeze more money out everyone.
It's 2017, I doubt lag is a huge issue for most people when streaming netflix/playing video games. If you do experience lag, get faster internet. Your second paragraph also didn't explain how repealing net neutrality benefits the consumer. The only two reasons I can see are if I was some startup video streaming company, I would be at a greater disadvantage against Netflix with the zero rating in place. Second would be restricting p*rn throughout the network.
There is no benefit to the consumer and it could actually stifle innovation, that elusive sense of industriousness that libertarians put on a pedestal until it inconveniences an established business that everyone hates (ISPs).
